Vatican Blasts Trans Surgery, Surogacy, Etc

[danieldemol]

In some cases tragedies have occurred when surgeries have altered a person's sexual identity.

Surgery doesn't change a person's identity according to my understanding, it only changes their sex organs to match their identity.

And more tragedies have occurred due to not undergoing reassignment surgery, so if your goal is to minimise tragedy then reassignment surgery is good news.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nothing new?

And yet, last time I mentioned sex change not being permissible under Catholic teachings, you said there wasn't a definitive teaching on the subject, as if I couldn't present the Church's stance like that without this definitive teaching.

Um, okay? I don't even remember that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What's is wrong with being against Catholicism? Catholicism represents a package of beliefs and calls to action; a significant subset of which are are both traditionally and currently harmful to individuals who adhere to some of those beliefs, all of those beliefs and none of those beliefs. I am anti- that irrespective of the packaging.


It doesn't matter if you have no regard for how others are treated. It doesn't matter if you only care how others are treated if they belong to your particular group.


If by "blow a gasket" you mean that we will not see you speak against the harmful behaviors of the RCC -- yeah, we got that.

Yawn.

 

[Rival]

Wow, y'all are letting the anti-Catholicism flow in this thread. This really doesn't matter unless you're a Catholic. I was and I left over my disagreements with its teachings. You're not going to see me blow a gasket because they still uphold those teachings. This literally is nothing new. Surrogacy, IVF and sex changes have never been permissable under Catholic teaching. I realize there wasn't a specific teaching about transgender/transsexual people but you couldn't seriously expect them to approve of it.

Some folks will never be happy.

When I made my thread about the C of E wanting more trans priests, that got **** on too.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some folks will never be happy.

When I made my thread about the C of E wanting more trans priests, that got **** on too.

Indeed. I feel that a lot of them just hate the reminder that anyone has a different opinion than them. They seem to think it's a life or death thing. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas!

 

[Debater Slayer]

Indeed. I feel that a lot of them just hate the reminder that anyone has a different opinion than them. They seem to think it's a life or death thing. Welcome to the marketplace of ideas!

Do you see a fundamental difference between a strictly theological or doctrinal position that only applies to members of a religion and a doctrinal position that has extensive social and legal ramifications for people outside the faith, especially when the Church aims to spread its beliefs in different countries?

The Church's positions stop being mere matters of opinion once they affect the lives of non-Catholics. An organization doesn't get to preach that, say, certain groups are immoral sinners or that they should have no right to marriage—especially while knowing that those specific beliefs have had tangible social and legal consequences for centuries—and then claim that this is just a personal opinion. The Church's doctrine is public, consequential, and influential. I don't see how it can be skipped over as a mere opinion given its effects in the real world.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you see a fundamental difference between a strictly theological or doctrinal position that only applies to members of a religion and a doctrinal position that has extensive social and legal ramifications for people outside the faith, especially when the Church aims to spread its beliefs in different countries?

The Church's positions stop being mere matters of opinion once they affect the lives of non-Catholics. An organization doesn't get to preach that, say, certain groups are immoral sinners or that they should have no right to marriage—especially while knowing that those specific beliefs have had tangible social and legal consequences for centuries—and then claim that this is just a personal opinion. The Church's doctrine is public, consequential, and influential. I don't see how it can be skipped over as a mere opinion given its effects in the real world.

Dude, I used to be Catholic and I'm not anymore. I left because there's really no place for me since they don't accept who I am and will not be doing so. Also, I don't believe in the theology. But since I stopped trying to follow it, do I feel their teachings effect me? Nope. That's why I'm bemused by all these irreligious and antitheist people in this thread acting like the world is falling down when it literally has nothing to do with them, unless they're Catholic. The Catholic Church has never supported those things in the first place. I mean, even most Catholics don't really follow the Church's beliefs on a number of things. They don't on sex and we even have a self- proclaimed "Catholic" on this board who doesn't even believe in the Trinity or the Pope's authority.

Now about politicians and such, that's just how it is in a democracy. If you don't like what someone believes or their purposed policies, don't vote for them. But they have the right to their views and to advocate for them, like everyone else does.

Aside from politics, it's the same thing. You can argue with them and talk about their beliefs you don't like, but people have the right to their view at the end of the day.

 

[PureX]

I don't care. Not a Catholic. I don't live in a Catholic nation or am I bound by Catholic doctrine. So what? Just another opinion in an endless chasm of opinions.

But you get to HATE on them for this opinion. How can you pass that up?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Dude, I used to be Catholic and I'm not anymore. I left because there's really no place for me since they don't accept who I am and will not be doing so. Also, I don't believe in the theology. But since I stopped trying to follow it, do I feel their teachings effect me? Nope. That's why I'm bemused by all these irreligious and antitheist people in this thread acting like the world is falling down when it literally has nothing to do with them, unless they're Catholic. The Catholic Church has never supported those things in the first place. I mean, even most Catholics don't really follow the Church's beliefs on a number of things. They don't on sex and we even have a self- proclaimed "Catholic" on this board who doesn't even believe in the Trinity or the Pope's authority.

I don't subscribe to anti-religious views, myself, so my criticism of any Church beliefs is only insofar as they encroach on others' rights. In countries with clear separation of religion and state law, I agree that the Church's positions don't—or at least legally shouldn't—have any influence on non-Catholics' lives, but many countries don't have such separation (whether de facto or de jure).

I'm not in a country where I have to even remotely worry about the Church's positions on anything, but I can see why someone in a predominantly Catholic country, where laws may be influenced by Catholic teaching even if Catholicism is not an official state religion, would worry about the influence of certain teachings on their life.

Now about politicians and such, that's just how it is in a democracy. If you don't like what someone believes or their purposed policies, don't vote for them. But they have the right to their views and to advocate for them, like everyone else does.

Aside from politics, it's the same thing. You can argue with them and talk about their beliefs you don't like, but people have the right to their view at the end of the day.

No disagreement here. The Church has the right to its beliefs, of course, and so does anyone who subscribes to its teachings. I do think that people also have the right to criticize teachings that they perceive to be harmful to them or others, though. It's equally true that a Marxist-Leninist party would have the right to promote its views in a democracy, for example, but I know I would vocally criticize it and call out the harm its views could cause.

On a different note concerning this news, though: I'm not sure what Pope Francis is currently trying to do or signal from his position as the pope. He has issued some statements that were liberal to the point of causing significant controversy, and this news seems at odds with the general attitudes he has expressed in previous statements. I don't know whether he's feeling pressured to go in either direction, but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

 

[metis]

So let me get this straight, metis. You don't believe the Pope speaks for Christ?

Not really.

Much like Peter, the Pope has a leadership position but is not the "Lone Ranger" as he must work with the bishops, much like Perter worked with the other Apostles. As Peter certainly wasn't perfect, neither is the Pope.

 

[ppp]

Yawn.

My cat tries to play off his gaffs with nonchalance, too.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My cat tries to play off his gaffs with nonchalance, too.

There was no gaff. I just found your raving and rudeness boorish. Did you actually expect me to waste my valuable time responding to that nonsense? Ha!

 

[ppp]

There was no gaff. I just found your raving and rudeness boorish. Did you actually expect me to waste my valuable time responding to that nonsense? Ha!

 

[metis]

On a different note concerning this news, though: I'm not sure what Pope Francis is currently trying to do or signal from his position as the pope. He has issued some statements that were liberal to the point of causing significant controversy, and this news seems at odds with the general attitudes he has expressed in previous statements. I don't know whether he's feeling pressured to go in either direction, but it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

Yes, and I do believe he's caught between a rock and a hard place. The conservative bishops do not like him because he is sometimes willing to stray off the "path", and the liberal bishops want him to go even farther to the left than he's been.

As you know, PF is the first Jesuit pope, and the Jesuits are generally more liberal as they generally are more free-thinkers more open to objective science. This is why I like him so much and why I do feel sorry for the Catch-22 he's in with his vintage years and poor health. Thus, I believe it was maybe a gesture to the right to try to prevent more schism? I don't know.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A phychological theory that people can be whatever gender they think they are does not seem to have much to do with real science.

Is that because you don't think the brain is a fit study for science? Or don't you think the brain has anything to do with the self?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please grow up. You're almost twice my age.

 

[Rival]

Surgery doesn't change a person's identity according to my understanding, it only changes their sex organs to match their identity.

And more tragedies have occurred due to not undergoing reassignment surgery, so if your goal is to minimise tragedy then reassignment surgery is good news.

The jury is infact still out on this.

I don't know but that many folks seem to think SRS are just routine and have been perfected, but this isn't the case. There are many trans individuals who choose not to because some of the results have not been good, have become badly infected, caused prolapse, etc. Many transmen do not choose to have phalloplasty or other such options because it's such a bad surgery and hasn't nearly the results anyone wants. Many vaginoplasties are just cosmetic and do not allow for proper sexual intercourse as the hole is too small, painful, and can sometimes not smell very nice. There are myriad reasons to not get surgery as much as to get it and I don't think getting or not getting should be a judgement call.

 

[metis]

I think we should leave such decisions to those who are actually in the position as they know better what their situation is. Obviously, with teens, the parents also will have to be involved. What I too often see here, imo, are people who want to make the decisions for them.

 

[Rival]

I think we should leave such decisions to those who are actually in the position as they know better what their situation is. Obviously, with teens, the parents also will have to be involved. What I too often see here, imo, are people who want to make the decisions for them.

But that's called an institutional religion.

I mean, really that's just religion.

I don't know but that Westerners seem to think everything ought be an individual choice, or theology and religion has no part in it. I mean, there's a theology of almost everything; if you're truly religious it should matter to you. If you are religious you don't always have free choice and you are bound by what your religion teaches, that's the way it's always been.

Individualism doesn't make room for religion and thinks everything all ought be private.

That's not how religion works and never has done. It's a community and behaves like one, with rules implicit and explicit, free choice be damned.

And that's not changing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes it is complex and some people who feel/think they are the opposite gender to what their biology suggests could be right.
This is not scientific facts about anything however and does not make it legitimate to make it illegal to not affirm the gender that children think they are, or to suggest that these children should take puberty suppressing drugs. Most of these children, if left to sort it out, will end up affirming their own gender as being their biological sex.

Are you certain about that last point? Can you point to anything that affirms it? I saw one study, but it was considered flawed due to lack of any followup.